Opposition MPs staged a protest inside the chamber of Parliament on Tuesday demanding an immediate debate on their no-confidence motion against Speaker Jagath Wickramaratne, and the Government responded that no properly constituted motion has been submitted.

Tensions flared as Opposition members carried placards calling for the motion to be taken up without further delay, the Daily Mirror reported. Hiru News reported that the disturbance began after the Opposition Leader questioned the handling of the motion, and that the protest in the well of the House followed.

The Government’s answer: a procedural objection

Chief Government Whip and Minister Nalinda Jayatissa told Parliament that the Opposition had failed to submit the motion in accordance with the Standing Orders, the Daily Mirror reported separately.

“Submit a no-confidence motion in accordance with the Standing Orders. We are ready to defeat it,” he said.

Jayatissa added that matters which are sub judice cannot be included in a no-confidence motion. He did not specify, in what is reported, which of the Opposition’s allegations he considers to be before the courts.

The Government’s position is therefore not that it opposes a debate, but that what has been tendered does not qualify as a motion it can be asked to debate. That is a narrower objection than a refusal, and it leaves the remedy with the Opposition.

A dispute that is now four weeks old

The Samagi Jana Balawegaya first said it was considering the motion on 26 September. By 5 October the party had set Friday 9 October as the day it would be handed to Parliament, with MP Ajith P. Perera putting the number of allegations against the Speaker at 49 — chiefly concerning items missing from the official residence inventory and alleged undue influence on parliamentary employees, some of whom he said had been summoned before the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption.

On 6 October, Leader of the House Bimal Ratnayake told Parliament the Government was willing to take up a debate that same week, telling the Opposition to “hand over the motion today.”

Tuesday’s exchange indicates that nearly a month later no debate has been scheduled. Neither filing states whether the motion was in fact handed over on 9 October as the SJB intended, so this desk is not asserting that it was.

Jayatissa’s second claim

The Minister also accused the Opposition of choosing Tuesday for its protest in order to disrupt a Government motion seeking the appointment of a Parliamentary Select Committee to investigate the events of Black July, which was before the House the same day.

That is an allegation of motive, not a reported fact, and no Opposition response to it appears in either filing.

Not reported

Neither newsroom reports what the Speaker said, if anything, during the protest, nor whether he was in the chair at the time — a question that matters because scheduling a motion against the Speaker ordinarily involves his own office. Nothing in the reporting sets out which Standing Order the Government says was breached, which allegations it regards as sub judice, how long the protest lasted, or whether the sitting was suspended.

The Speaker has not responded publicly at any stage of this dispute. CIABOC has not confirmed the summonses alleged in October, and no verified newsroom has reported the text of the motion.